December 2016 – Page 20 – TrueFreeThinker

2012 – Celebrities Compliment Christianity, Again

As Dan Brown and the New Atheists have done; Roland Emmerich compliments Christianity. Roland Emmerich is the director of the new movie 2012.

I must say that the concept of 2012 AD has been fascinating to me for at least as far back as 17 years when I used to do a lot of reading about the Mayans and even made a t-shirt with the numbers 2012 written out in Mayan characters.

Thus, I have known for a long time that as we approached the year 2012 a lot of attention would be drawn to the New Age movement and the occult—all in various forms. I would not even be the least bit surprised if some Christian or another proclaims that Jesus will return in 2012 because this half a verse says this, that obscure reference implies that, add the distance from the Washington Monument to the closest shoe store with the circumference of the Moon and bada bing—oi vey, I can really hear it already.

If you have seen commercials for this movie there is obviously a lot of destruction in view as was the case with Emmerich’s other movies such as “Independence Day,” “Godzilla” and “The Day After Tomorrow.”

When asked “Why do you like killing the world?” he stated, “It makes for a good story.”[1] In his stories he has destroyed the White House twice, “I think my favorite in this one is like the White House destruction.”

The huge statue Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil disintegrates as it falls into pieces which was included in the movie, as Roland Emmerich puts it, “Because I’m against organized religion.”[2]
AMEN to that! Although, I wonder why disorganized religion is any better—probably the appeal of lack of accountability.

Well, if he will destroy a statue of Jesus because he is against organized religion we are surely in for quite a ride: watch out EVERY organized religion, the movie 2012 is sure to crush your sacred symbols!
By the way; note the obvious in that regardless of the fictional story’s premise he give voice to his personal prejudice.

The Vatican’s Sistine Chapel takes a hit:

I always try to come up with what makes sense for the story, you know?…And it’s not only about the destruction. It has to kind of stand for something. One of my favorite pieces of art is Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel: … God … reaches out to Adam, and the crack goes through it. It’s just an interesting kind of notion.”

And you thought that this was a natural disaster sort of movie. Nay! This is a theological movie or rather, anti-theological.
Incidentally, I wrote a commentary on “The Creation of Adam.”
Let’s see; that is two for (or against) Christianity and zero for anyone else…what is next?

The Vatican is up again as this time St. Peter’s Basilica not only goes bye-bye but the massive dome crushes a crowd of churchgoers:

Why … don’t [we] have the church fall on people’s head?…The whole Vatican kind of tips and kind of rolls over the people. It said something, because in the story, some people … believe in praying and prayer, and they pray in front of the church, and it’s probably the wrong thing, what they would do in that situation.

Ok, so we are at three anti-Christian and oh yeah, one anti-American. Surely in the name of diversity other religions and governments will get theirs…let us see.

Well, apparently at least one Buddhist monk get it:

Ah, yes, here we go: the Kaaba in Mecca to which Muslims (who are physically capable) are enjoined to travel at least once in their lifetime during the Hajj; what happens to the Kaaba?:

Well, I wanted to do that [destroy it], I have to admit…But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said, “I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie.” And he was right…We have to all, in the western world, think about this. You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have … a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it’s just something which I kind of didn’t [think] was [an] important element, anyway, in the film, so I kind of left it out.

Oh, I see now; this is the Rushdie vs. Brown effect:
For writing a novel about Islam, “The Satanic Verses,” Salman Rushdie gained a death sentence and many people were murdered, hurt and terrorized. For writing a novel about Christianity, “The Da Vinci Code” et al., Dan Brown gained instant celebrity, millions of dollars, thousands of adoring fans and further contracts to write anti-Christian tales.

But what does “in the western world” mean?
It means in nations premised upon and functioning according to Judeo-Christian principles.
But what does “You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart” mean?
It means that you can purposefully set out to make them fall apart which means that you are purposefully destroying them.
Christians may say, “So what? It’s a movie” or “Shame on him” or “I will pray for him” or “I will not go see the movie” or “I will hold up signs in protest” while he still becomes a filthy rich celebrity.

And here I speak as a Judeo-Christian iconoclast. Whilst working at a Roman Catholic church I was once asked to place a vase of flowers before a statue of Mary. I stated, “I can’t do that” to which the response was to just set it down there. I discerned that perhaps they thought I was stating that I lacked some sort of physical capability and so stated, “My Jewish ancestors chose to die before honoring images, I can’t do it” (just in case, I have written about how to deal with the concept of not making/honoring images).

When Jesus stated that the location (in that case a juxtaposition of Jerusalem and Samaria) was not relevant since God is worshipped in spirit I realized that there are no such things as true “sacred sites” (see his conversation in John ch. 4).

Thus, just as Dan Brown compliments Christianity by besmirching it exclusively, Roland Emmerich follows along gaining celebrity and wealth in the rubble of Christian symbols.

Of course, the New Atheists have likewise turned away from the radical Islam to which they each point as the 9/11 fuel that fed the fires of their unbelief. Rather, via a “brilliant” insight by Sam Harris, they chose to sit in the safety and comfort of countries premised upon Judeo-Christian principles and besmirch moderate Christians. Why take on the Ayatollah, Al Qaeda, and extremist Muslims worldwide and do so on their own turf when you can when you can become a wealthy celebrity in Christian countries whilst taking on the true malice and evil of Jerry Falwell, the Pope, the Bishop of Canterbury, etc.? (details here).

Here is what I have to say to Brown, Emmerich, New Atheists, et al.; you are welcome, I love you and may God richly bless you.

[1] Jonathan Crow, “The One Place on Earth Not Destroyed in ‘2012’,” November 3, 2009
[2] Patrick Lee, “What even Roland Emmerich won’t destroy: an Islamic landmark,” Sci Fi Wire, November 2, 2009

Darwinism by Censorship – “Darwin’s Dilemma” Gets X’d—Addendum

Allegedly, documents are, allegedly, being, allegedly, withheld for fear, allegedly, fear of evidence of such censorship—allegedly.

This is the report:

Discovery Institute has filed a lawsuit against the California Science Center (the “Center”) for unlawfully refusing to disclose public documents requested by Discovery Institute under the California Public Records Act.
Discovery Institute filed the public documents request on October 9, 2009, following the Center’s October 6, 2009 cancellation of a contract with the American Freedom Alliance (AFA) to screen a pro-intelligent design video, Darwin’s Dilemma…

the Center released 44 pages of documents claiming to have disclosed “all documents” and that “no documents have been withheld,” apart from a few e-mail addresses that were redacted.

“California Science Center’s claims are not true, and we know for a fact that e-mail communications exist, including communications with the Smithsonian Institution, that should have been disclosed in response to our public documents request but weren’t, showing clear violation of California’s Public Records Act,” said Casey Luskin, Program Officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs at the Discovery Institute. “The Center withheld public communications by decision makers who cancelled the contract with AFA,” said Luskin…

“We also have evidence that the California Science Center had written communications with the Smithsonian Institution expressing angst over the AFA’s pro-intelligent design event,” explained Luskin. “Yet not a single e-mail, letter, or other document disclosed by the California Science Center mentions the Smithsonian, even though our public documents request specifically asked for documents referencing the ‘Smithsonian'”…

“If the Center wrongfully refused to disclose certain now-known public documents, how many other public documents remain to be uncovered that evidence the California Science Center’s viewpoint discrimination?” asked Luskin. “We hope this lawsuit will answer that question.”[1]

[1] John West, “Discovery Institute Sues California Science Center for Suppressing Public Documents Showing Viewpoint Discrimination Against Intelligent Design,” Evolution News, December 2, 2009

The Most Anti-Religion Book Ever Published

While I have referenced and discussed very many books; some pro theism some contra theism and pro atheism some contra atheism some betwixt.

Yet, there is one anti-religion book that surpasses them all by far—very, very far.

Yes, there is one anti-religion book in particular that I have been aware of for some time but have, frankly, not developed the intestinal fortitude to tackle.

This book is so very anti-religion and makes such cutting statements against religion that, when discussing such matters, it is often all but ignored by both atheists and Christian apologists.

As powerful and destructive of the whole concept of religion as this book is it will, at some point, have to be tackle by someone.

I am not even writing this post as an announcement of triumph over the book’s arguments but merely to all but admit utter flummoxed defeat. It surely requires a mind much, much sharper mine to tackle this book. Compared to what is surely required to overturn this book’s attacks upon religion my mind is about as sharp as a Nerf ball.

This “book” is actually a volume which consists of the thoughts of one conceiver and was penned by 40 authors. Thus, the volume actually consists of 66 books.

This book typically goes by the title: The Bible.

Here are some examples of the Bible’s anti-religion statements:

This people draws near with words only and honors me with their lips alone, though their hearts are far from me, and their reverence for me has become routine observances of the precepts of men (Isaiah 29:13, Jesus quotes this verse in Matthew 15:8).

Has the LORD [as] [great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, [And] to heed than the fat of rams (1st Samuel 15:22).

“To what purpose [is] the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?” Says the LORD. “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams. And the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the blood of bulls, Or of lambs or goats…Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies—I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting…Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow” (see Isaiah 1:11-17).

For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings (Hosea 6:6, also see 2:11; 4:6).

The Psalmist addresses God thusly,

Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; my ears You have opened. Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require (Psalm 40:6).

For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; you do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart—these, O God, You will not despise (Psalms 51:16-17).

Also,

To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice (Proverbs 21:3).

…to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices (Mark 12:33).

There actually appears to be one favorable reference to religion in the Bible and it is when it is defined thusly,

Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world (James 1:27)

But wait a minute; did not God Himself establish the Jewish religion and the Christian religion? Did not God promulgate the 613 commandments (which a Jew never had to keep) many of which prescribe religious ordinances? Did not God ordain baptism, communion, etc.? What about elders, priests, pastors, etc.?

Therefore, God established and later besmirch religion!

This would be a good emotive/polemical point yet, overly simplistic and caricatured.

Christians, when allowed the privilege of defining themselves, have long stated that Christianity is not a religion but a relation—a relationship with God.

Judaism is to be considered a peoplehood, people who traditionally held to certain tenets. Let us consider some Jewish history.

When God freed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt (and I have yet to read anything by any atheist condemning Egyptian slavery) God was building up a nation from the ground up. The Israelites were institutionalized due to centuries of slavery. They were freed and had to be provided a premise upon which to be build into a nation.

This premise was the God, their God, the one true God, the one who defeated the Egyptian gods had freed them and was making them into a nation, a people—recall that God stated, “against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment” (Exodus 12:12).

The Israelites agreed to abide by God’s laws and live according to them in their nation. In order to break their institutionalization God provided them guidelines that would place their attention where it belonged—on God.

The modern day environmental movement, even the most extreme sorts, present us with a good example of what the Law, the Torah, was meant to accomplish. The environmentalists hold to a save the Earth worldview. This means that everything they do, purchase, utilize, eat and discard is filtered through the question: how will this affect the environment?

Likewise, everything that the Israelites did was filtered through the question: how will this affect my relationship with God? Or, what has God said about this? Or, do I choose my own will or God’s? Or, some such question.

The Torah was meant to function as building blocks or a staircase that was meant to build the Israelites from institutionalized slaves to free agents who learned thesis and antithesis thinking, discerning, deciding, reason, etc.—recall that it was God who stated, “let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18). This is why the Jews have considered illiteracy to be a sin and have always been known as academicians, scholars, intellects, scientists, jurists, etc.

There came a time when the Israelites were performing rituals robotically. They seemed to forget that the spirit of the law was the surface upon which the letter of the law was written. You may have heard about a Shabbat Goy; this is a Gentile whom a Jew may get to perform certain tasks that are unlawful for the Jew to perform during the Sabbath. Thus, the Jew could still get what she wanted accomplished during the Sabbath but not be technically performing those functions herself.

Nationally, the Israelites had reached the point of forgetting what the rituals meant, what they were conveying, to what they pointed, their ultimate purpose and were simply jumping through ritualistic hoops. This, at this level, at this point, really is what is commonly termed “religion” and it is condemnable—God condemns it.

The rituals were meant to symbolically represent one’s relationship to God (as well as the coming Messiah for example). They were meant to enact a change from institutionalized slaves, to people who could daily make various decisions for themselves via laws and rituals, to ultimately changing the persona.

Thus, God emphasizes to them that He wants and what is wrong with “religion”:

They are merely going through the motions whilst “their hearts are far from me” and they are merely following “the precepts of men.”

God emphasizes that to obey and heed is better than sacrifice. What is the point of the performing the sacrifice if it is merely the performance of a religious duty—quite literally; merely a performance?

Just what is the point? “Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow.”

Why? Because God “desire[s] mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.”

Judaism has long known that the commandments in the Torah where temporary and that the Messiah would fulfill them.

The Gospel message was given to the first two people who ever lived and thus: it has always been in the ever since. In Genesis 3:15

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.

This is known as the protoevangelium and it denotes that the seed of the woman (note: not the seed of the man) will crush the serpent’s (symbolic of satan) head (ultimate defeat) while satan bruises the seed’s heel (a strike, not defeat). Thus, the belief in the ultimate redeemer has always been known and is in the most ancient knowledge of the ancient peoples.
Don Richardson conducted some interesting research in the area and published a book entitled: Eternity in Their Hearts – Startling Evidence of Belief in the One True God in Hundreds of Cultures Throughout the World which you can get at this Amazon link.

Note Rabbi Saul of Tarsus, aka Paul the Apostle’s condemnation of the trappings, and I mean literal traps, of religion gleaned from Colossians ch. 2:

Beware lest anyone cheat you…according to the tradition of men…So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Let no one cheat you…taking delight in false humility and worship of angels…if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—“Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

Or consider what he stated as gleaned from Galatians ch. 4:

…when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years.

Thus, ritual was meant to be indicative. Paul, notes this in stating,

So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ (Colossians 2:16-17).

Thus, let us keep in mind that when anyone besmirches “religion” they are merely seconding the Bible and God Himself. Indeed, religion, the sort against which atheists and various anti-Judeo-Christians rail is the very same religion against which God rails—and He was first.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.

The Brit Hume, Tiger Woods Affair

The recent controversy over Brit Hume inviting Tiger Woods to seek redemption in Christianity rather than Buddhism elucidates three major themes that modern day pop and media culture do not seem to understand and thus, make unnecessarily complicated.

Brit Hume is a Senior Political Analyst and Fox News Sunday panelist and Tiger Woods became a gazillionaire by hitting a ball with a stick.

Within the context of the recent outing of Tiger Woods as a womanizing adulterer Brit Hume made the following comment1

Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person I think is a very open question, and it’s a tragic situation with him. I think he’s lost his family. It’s not clear to me that — whether he’ll be able to have a relationship with his children.But the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of this scandal — the extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith.

So my message to Tiger would be, “Tiger, turn your faith — turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”

Some are shocked that Brit Hume did that which Christians have been doing for two millennia; from the very establishment of the new covenant. Indeed, something which is a part of Jesus’ words to His followers, something that is a part of the New Testament, something which is a part of traditional/biblical Christianity, the “great commission” itself.It may not be appreciated, it may make some uncomfortable, some may not like it, others may want to oppress Christians for following the dictates of their own religion but the fact is that in Matthew 28:19 Jesus stated, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations (NKJV).

Incidentally, note that He stated that “disciples” are to be made and not converts. It is not the task of Christians to convert people but to make people who convert into disciples. That is to say; to disciple those who convert since a disciple is one who wants to learn and are assisted along the way via those who are already in the way.

How this is controversial is flummoxing yet, only understood within the context of pop-culture and the politics of personal destruction via the eager anti-conservative media.

Comments made against Brit Hume have been as expected and shockingly militant as they are contradictory; these basically consist of correlating him with Al-Queda and or the Talibam in referring to him as dangerous.
Overall, Hume is being referred to as being intolerant, an exclusivist, one who lacks diversity, who is narrow minded and who thinks that he is right while Woods is wrong.

These are the lesson that emotionally driven pop-culture and fantastical media needs to learn:In referring to Brit Hume as intolerant what follows is that he should not be tolerated-the supposed tolerant do not tolerated the intolerant Hume and thus, become intolerant themselves.In referring to Brit Hume as an exclusivist what follows is that he is to be excluded-the supposed inclusivists do not include the exclusivist Hume and thus, become exclusivists themselves.In referring to Brit Hume as narrow minded what follows is that he should broaden, open, his mind and embrace alternate opinions-the supposed broad/open minded are not broad/open minded enough to embrace Hume’s opinions and thus, become narrow minded themselves.

In referring to Brit Hume as lacking diversity what follows is that the diversity of the supposed diverse is not diverse enough to embrace him-the supposed diverse demand that Hume embrace the pseudo-neo-diversity which does not amount to diversity but to uniformity.

The bottom line is that Brit Hume is intolerant, an exclusivist, lacks diversity and is narrow minded because his implication is that he is right and Tiger Woods is wrong-the supposed tolerant, inclusivist, diverse, broad/open minded respond by asserting that they are right and Hume is wrong.

Tolerance, inclusivism, diversity, broad/open minded used to mean, “I will tolerate, include, be diverse and broad/open minded about even that with which I disagree.” Now it means, “I will only tolerate, include, be diverse and broad/open minded about that with which I agree.”

In the USA, a country founded upon the premise of freedom of religious expression, Brit Hume has the right given to him by “our Creator_nature’s God” (as per the Declaration of Independence) to express his opinion and invite Tiger Woods to seek redemption in Christianity. Likewise, Tiger Woods has the right to choose one of, at least, two responses: he could say, “Yes” or he could say, “No.”
Is it really so very difficult and complex? If someone invites you anywhere to do anything you can answer in the same way.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

The BOBA Digest, Part 4: The Reductio ad Hitlerum Awards

Certainly not due to lack of material, we have not had an entry in the BOBA Digest for some time; do acquaint yourself: The BOBA Digest
In keeping with the intended purpose of the BOBA Digest it seemed appropriate to consider who the winner is of the award for ubiquitously committing the fallacy of the reductio ad Hitlerum-aka argumentum ad Hitlerum, reductio ad Nazium or argumentum ad Nazium (not to be confused with ad nauseum).

This basically refers to equating or boiling down one’s opponent’s views to that of Adolf Hitler’s or the Nazis in general. It is a desperate emotive attempt to appeal to your audience’s sense of outrage and belittling one’s opponents whilst leaving their arguments unscathed.

Having considered the field of polemics in which, perhaps by necessity, controversies and contrivances are commonly concocted a clear winner of the reductio ad Hitlerum Awards has emerged.

And the winner is…

Drum roll please…

Richard Dawkins!!!!!!!!!!!!

In one of his top indiscretions with regards to the reductio ad Hitlerum Richard Dawkins compared Rabbi Shmuley Boteach to Adolf Hitler-and threw in Dinesh D’Souza for bad measure:

…people like Boteach and D’Souza may be honestly unaware that they shriek and yell in such an unbecoming way…that the resemblance to Hitler passes them by…they don’t hear, and literally and honestly don’t understand, the strong resemblance to the hideous vocal style of Hitler…the comparison with Hitler is limited to vocal style. Of course nobody is suggesting that either Boteach or D’Souza have similar opinions to Hitler, or resemble him in any other way at all.
But imagine listening to a Boteach speech or a D’Souza speech or a Hitler speech with no knowledge of English or German. I suspect that you’d hardly notice the difference. Contrast it with a speech by Christopher Hitchens. The voice is strong, even a little thrilling. But there’s no hysteria there. The words match the content: measured, thoughtful, strong and powerful but never hysterical.1

What would you prefer: someone who yells “Love your neighbor” or someone who calmly likens to virtually everyone with whom he disagrees, including a Rabbi, to Hitler?

Of course, this presents yet another example of Richard Dawkins utterly failing as a scientist as he merely supposes why they “shriek and yell.” Which, by the way, Dinesh D’Souza does not do. D’Souza points this out in responding to Dawkins and offers a guess as to why he would be likened to Hitler,

I suspect that Dawkins has come up with this pathetic reductio ad Hitlerum in order to justify his cowardice in not debating me.2

Needless to say that Rabbi Shmuley Boteach took offense yet, Richard Dawkins was kind enough to alleviate any misunderstandings:

I did not say you think like Hitler, or hold the same opinions as Hitler, or do terrible things to people like Hitler. Obviously and most emphatically you don’t. I said you shriek like Hitler. That is the only point of resemblance, and it is true.
You shriek and yell and rant like Hitler. Not all the time, of course. You also tell very good jokes, and tell them brilliantly. You deservedly get lots of laughs, as a good comedian should. But throughout your speeches you periodically rise to climaxes of shrieking rant, and that is just like Hitler.

That certainly clarified matters: Rabbi Boteach is only somewhat like Hitler yet, more like a clown. Such, apparently, is the stunningly shallow level of Dawkins’ empathy, sympathy and repentance.

Within his film “The Root of All Evil?” Richard Dawkins interviewed a Muslim and described himself to the Muslim as “a gentle atheist.” In the same series, while interviewing American Pastor Ted Haggard, Dawkins likened Haggard’s church service to a Nazi rally-perhaps he will likewise liken Nazi rallies to football games, the Michael Jackson memorial, Jonas Brothers concerts, American Atheists conferences, etc.

Ted Haggard being nice to Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins correlated creationism with Nazism and deems any evolutionist who is not as fundamentalistic as himself as an appeaser of creationists, whom he correlates with Hitler (“the Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists” as he terms these evolutionists3).

More recently, Richard Dawkins has stated that if you doubt, even dare to doubt, that humans are related to “bananas and turnips” you are to be likened to a Holocaust denier (see here).

Shockingly, when it actually comes to considering Adolf Hitler, Dawkins states, “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.”About parents who raise their children according to the “religion” he states, “It is evil to describe a child as a Muslim child or a Christian child. I think labelling children is child abuse and I think there is a very heavy issue.”Hitler; who knows?

“Religious” parents; pure evil, no question about it!

Proof that Richard Dawkins is a militant atheist :o)

Just kidding; the proof that he is militant comes in the form of his statements of his view.

But why be a constant committer of the reductio ad Hitlerum? Who knows: it may be a display of his obvious lack of ability to meet arguments on the arguments own terms. It may be that they are attention begging ploys. It may be appeals to his foaming at the mouth emotionally driven hordes of adherents.4

It may be many things of which we have no knowledge. Yet, this morning I was reading the Gospel of Mark in which Jesus states:

And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man” (7:20-23)

This is reminiscent to another of Jesus’ statements,

out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Matthew 12:34; Luke 6:45).

It is that with which he is saturated which compels Richard Dawkins to make the above noted and very many other malicious statements and for this; he ought be loved, pitied and prayed for.

Tiger Woods

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Richard Dawkins’ Explanation Fallacy

As is the case with much New Atheist literature; well-within-the-box-atheist-groupthink-talking-points are passed off as silver bullets, loaded to finally destroy theistic arguments.
Yet, just as often the silver bullets are smoke and mirrors and snake oil—the exciting but fallacious stuff of fiction.

This is not to say that fiction is not useful; it certainly can be fun, exciting and mind expanding. Yet, the issue here is that fiction or faction (part fact and part fiction; the most useful sort of deception) is that Richard Dawkins proposes his very own particular and peculiar standard (which any philosopher or scientist can see right through) and then leaves it to the hoi polloi to utilize whilst refusing to debate the issue in scholarly settings with worthy adversaries. Thus, the Explanation Fallacy is ubiquitously promulgated in cyberspace by those quite pleased to fuel their emotional rejection of God (which is what atheism is) with any bit of wood shavings.

So, what is the Explanation Fallacy?

Richard Dawkins asserts that appealing to God as the explanation for the universe (life, etc.) is fallacious because, in his view, it is no explanation at all. Why is this? Because, so he mis-reasons, it leaves God unexplained making God no explanation at all. Now you have to explain God and explain the explanation and the explanation’s explanation, etc. ad infinitum. In this view; you cannot appeal to God because God is even more unexplained, and perhaps unexplainable, than the thing you sought to explain in the first place namely, the universe, life, etc.

For example, in The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins wrote,

To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer.

Before offering an answer we ought to consider the question. Is the question valid? Is the arguments valid? Is the premise valid? Is the demand valid? Etc.

The fallacy is demanding “the” explanation in the first place: “the” referring to one, to one and only, to one and only single explanation. For example, if I am wearing a blue shirt and someone asks why my shirt is blue—to explain why my shirt is blue, what is the explanation as to why my shirt is blue—there is no such thing as a single answer. Context may determine which sort of answer they seek yet the explanations, generically, are manifold.
For instance: my shirt is blue due to the properties of light. It is blue due to the cloth having been dyed in a certain mixture of pigments. Blue due to market forces whereby it was determined by the manufacturer that people were purchasing this style of shirt in blue more than in other colors. Due to the fact that it is the one I pulled out of my closet this morning. And on it goes. There is no one, single, only explanation.

That this is the case is not only obvious to those outside of Richard Dawkins’ choir, outside of the box, outside of the cult of personality; this has been pointed out a myriad of times in a myriad of ways. Examples ranging from archeology to alien artifacts come to mind.
If you find what appear to be primitive tools you can logically conclude that they were designed and manufactured by intelligent personages—by living and capable beings. You would not have to give up this hypothesis or be ridiculed for it if you were asked to explain the personages and were unable because they are simply unknown to us, etc. Indeed, you would not have to abandon your hypothesis in favor of a hypothesis that explained the tools by appealing to the natural weathering of rocks or what have you.
If you travel to the dark side of the Moon and find a marquee stating, “Earthlings go home!” You may rightly conclude the work of aliens. However, if, upon being challenged to explain the aliens, you found yourself at a loss, you would not have appeal to weathering, etc.

If an explanation is to be rejected unless there is an explanation for/of the explanation then this would set up an infinite regress of unexplained/unexplainable pseudo-explanation and the endeavors of science would come to a screeching halt or would not get going in the first place.

Now, if the explanation fallacy is so clearly fallacious why is it so popular? Because it is useful. It plays an important part in polemics as it allows one to hold on to a beloved belief no matter how fallacious it is shown to be. You see; its appeal is not logical or scientific but emotional.

No matter what the explanation is, it can be said to not have reached the status of being the explanation—it will be said to not satisfy due to this and that. Meanwhile, what would be considered the explanation remains aloof, undefined or will turn out to be some bit of atheist theology, “If God was then God would…and would not…should…and should not…” etc. all based on the individual atheists personally preferred, personally authored theology.

Let us consider one example of God as explanation: God as explanation for how life came about.
Some say that “God created life” is no explanation at all. It most certainly is an explanation. But how can it be? After ally; it is not an explanation about how God created life. Indeed, and that is the very point; there are different sorts of explanations. Perhaps it would be useful to think of the questions of “Why?” and “How?” Why is there life? Because God created it. How did God create life? We do not know—but scientists are working on it. “Why?” is quite well answered by appealing to the philosophic argument from contingency; that the seemingly infinite regress of one form of life coming from another previously existing form of life is, in reality, a finite regress which logically ends (or, begins) with a being in which life was intrinsic.

“How?” is a different category of question and explanation and is asking for step by step cause and effect sorts of answers.

Thus, saying something such as, “God did it” is an explanation but does not satisfy every possible way of explaining. Likewise, appealing to the time of the gaps, the matter of the gaps, the chance of the gaps, the it just is, of the gaps is also inadequate.

Therefore, the Explanation Fallacy is popular because it is emotionally useful yet, it is illogical and unscientific.

————————-

For more on related issues see:

Atheist Circular Alogic – “Who Designed the Designer?”

Who made God? Who created God? Who designed the designer?

Nephilim in Adam Clarke’s commentary for Jude

From Adam Clarke’s (1760-1832 AD) commentary:

The angels which kept not their first estate – Την ἑαυτων αρχην Their own principality. The words may be understood of their having invaded the office or dignity of some others, or of their having by some means forfeited their own. This is spoken of those generally termed the fallen angels; but from what they fell, or from what cause or for what crime, we know not. It is generally thought to have been pride; but this is mere conjecture. One thing is certain; the angels who fell must have been in a state of probation, capable of either standing or falling, as Adam was in paradise. They did not continue faithful, though they knew the law on which they stood; they are therefore produced as the second example.

As to “from what they fell, or from what cause or for what crime” Jude is telling us as does 2 Peter 2.

These Angels “kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation” which is whey they are “reserved in everlasting chains under darkness” which will result in them undergoing “the judgment of the great day.” But what’fer? Peter add a timeline reference to Noah and the flood and both he and Jude direct us to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah which Jude details more explicitly than Peter as pertaining to “fornication, and going after strange flesh.”

The references to fallen Angles, Noah/flood as timelines and sexual sins is why they appear to be interpreting the Genesis 6 affair.

Adam Clarke further notes:

The judgment of the great day, – The final judgment, when both angels and men shall receive their eternal doom. See on 2 Peter 2:4; (note). In Sohar Exod., fol. 8, c. 32: “Rabbi Isaac asked: Suppose God should punish any of his heavenly family, how would he act? R. Abba answered: He would send them into the flaming river, take away their dominion, and put others in their place.” Some suppose that the saints are to occupy the places from which these angels, by transgression, fell.

FYI: “Sohar” is aka Zohar and refers to a primary text of Rabbinic mysticism dating from the 13th c. AD. In any case, this may pertain to 1 Corinthians 6:3’s statement, “Know ye not that we shall judge angels?”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.